CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CO Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicators: Michele O’Connor, John F. Spekkens
Indexed As: CO v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.192)
APPEARANCES
CO, Applicant Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent J. Daoust, Counsel
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1This Application was filed on December 17, 2019 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 192(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2CO (“the Applicant”) has asked the CFSRB to review the Respondent’s decision to refuse her application to adopt the Children DM and HM (“the Child DM” and “the Child HM”, together “DM&HM”), and the Society’s decision to remove the Child DM from her home where DM has lived as a foster child since birth. The Child HM currently lives in a different foster home.
3The Children’s Aid Society (“the Society” or “the Respondent”) intends that DM&HM be adopted by a kin family, ST and MR (“ST” and “MR”).
4The hearing on the merits took place in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2020.
5Of significance in this case is the issue of the native heritage of DM&HM. On February 4, 2020 the CFSRB issued an Interim Decision on a preliminary issue, directing that notice be given to the Métis Nation or the local Métis community. This notice was provided pursuant to section 192(10) of the Act which gives the CFSRB the authority to “add a person as a party to a review if, in the Board’s opinion, it is necessary to do so in order to decide all the issues in the review.” This notice did not name a specific child but gave the dates and location of the hearing on the merits of the Application. Neither named organization attended or communicated an intent to participate in the hearing.
6The Society’s evidence was presented in testimony from four staff members and from ST and MR. The Applicant testified along with two in-person witnesses and a letter of support from another witness who was unable to attend. Both parties submitted documentary evidence as well.
7Neither party presented expert evidence or case law.
8On February 28, 2020, the CFSRB issued the following order with reasons to follow.
Having considered the best interest of the Children, the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) confirms the decision of the Society refusing the application of the Applicant to adopt the Children [DM] and [HM].
9Following are our reasons for the February 28, 2020 order.
BACKGROUND
DM&HM and their siblings
10The Child DM was born in March 2018. He was placed in the Applicant’s home by the Society two days after his birth. He has lived there since that placement.
11The Child HM, younger sister of DM, was born in February 2019. She is currently living in a different foster home. The Society’s plans have always envisaged HM being adopted together with DM.
12The children’s mother is KM. She is English speaking and was raised as a catholic.
13The children’s father is AM. He is of Metis heritage and his first language was French.
14DM&HM, who are the subject of this Application, are both on extended care with the Society. They have three older siblings with whom they have access.
15The Child D2 is a half-brother of DM&HM. He is 12 years old and lives in a Society Group Home.
16The Child R and his sister L are full siblings of DM&HM. Both children were adopted by the K family.
17The four younger children have the same biological father (AM). He is a first cousin of ST who, together with her husband MR, are the adoption placement for DM & HM preferred by the Society.
18The Society worked with the parents of the five children for many years. There were issues of mental illness, domestic violence, and a lengthy prison term for the father as a result of a violent home invasion. Court proceedings resulted in the children being committed on a permanent basis to the care of the Society. AM made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain custody of DM&HM during the court proceedings.
19At various times, all five of the children were committed to the care of the Society on an extended care basis. The court orders regarding DM & HM were for extended care with no access to either parent.
20At the time of the two court orders (May 7, 2019 for the Child DM and August 1, 2019 for the Child HM), the court did not find that either child was indigenous. It was only later that the connection to the Métis culture was determined and confirmed.